Re: the why question
From: Guy Hoelzer (hoelzer_at_unr.edu)
Date: 09/09/04
- Next message: Robert Karl Stonjek: "Article: Linnean naming system faces challengers"
- Previous message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Talking parrots"
- In reply to: Paul: "the why question"
- Next in thread: A.C.H.: "Re: the why question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:50:39 +0000 (UTC)
Hi Paul,
in article chpsl7$n80$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Paul at paulw@mmail.ath.cx
wrote on 9/9/04 8:25 AM:
> How far are we from being able to answer the why question? We know inanimate
> salts tends to form crystals in order to minimize energy from our physics
> course. But this is very far from being ble to explain why viruses, bacteria,
> trees, animals tend to reproduing themselves-- and not to mention why the
> necessity of evolving themselves? What is the physical compelling reason to do
> that for? Where to start looking for the why?
In my opinion, the deepest scientific paradigm we have for answering the
"why" questions is thermodynamics. The only hope of reaching deeper would
be to hypothesize about the reasons that thermodynamic laws exist in the
universe. Many evolutionary biologists are comfortable arguing that natural
selection (or possibly genetic drift, or mutation) is the "ultimate" answer
to any biological "why" question;; but that begs the question of why natural
selection exists. I see natural selection, like all other dynamical
processes in the universe, as a fundamental part of an emergent phenomenon
serving thermodynamic imperatives. Stan Salthe, a philosopher of biology,
has recently published a paper expanding on this view, but I am afraid I
don't have the reference for you.
Cheers,
Guy
- Next message: Robert Karl Stonjek: "Article: Linnean naming system faces challengers"
- Previous message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Talking parrots"
- In reply to: Paul: "the why question"
- Next in thread: A.C.H.: "Re: the why question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
